While there is stuff still emerging on this topic, I am sure that no one has gone deep enough.

The attitudes of the child snatchers have been formed by their training at the hands of people who have imbibed the Frankfurt School objectives (including to make Western society so rotten that it stinks) through the general Lefty-ness of every higher education institution in the land, and in particular via the Common Purpose training so widespread in the Public sector.

So there must be a deeper motive.

My suggestion is that the motive is to make the thinking indigenous population afraid to reproduce for fear of what these child snatchers of dubious parentage will do to their children. That way the country ends up with a reduced IQ, and a proportionate increase in the population of those who are experienced in submitting to "authority". What could the child snatchers see as a down side?

Given the (NuLabour & EU inspired) demographic changes of the last couple of decades, Britain is probably very near to the point beyond which recovery is not possible.

Then the unthinking majority of people living in the British Isles will give a warm welcome to those who try to impose a strong man (dictator) to sort out the consequent problems.

[I knew thinking was bad for me!]

These social service employees must have degrees in stupid !
Would it not be right to say that 90% of parents would regard there children as there most precious possession ? The odds are on them snatching a child that will bring the animal out of a parent, and then BOOM, you can get the recipe for big bangs on the net and the ingredients are available in your local hardware and chemist shops, a sound word of advice is to stay well away from places where idiots play at " do-gooding" the time has come when some distressed parent will be making make smoke signals !

Looks to me like the concentration camps are up and running, but quite a bit pricier than the Third Reich Version - but, hey, Barrosso's Fourth Reich is no cheapskate operation. All of his fifth columnists are handsomely rewarded. Funnily enough, the reward bit is missing when you look at the Frankfurt School's shopping list for social destruction - I expect they wanted us to believe that it is all for our own good, and as Gideon (thanks for the paddock on expenses, guys) has reminded us this morning, many financial sacrifices are made by our great leaders.

God, I'm getting a bit Fed Up - look what you've made me say (But, thanks!) Time for a soothing bit of Dean Martin in Roma on You Tube - those were the days, eh?

And lying behind all this is a social disease that makes it impossible to say what you think about numerous issues. I am sure that, in committees where the social services try to decide what they are doing and how best to allocate their resources, anyone who pointed out that a concentration of Roma people was causing a problem would be impolitely ejected and demoted....

This is an enormous subject. I immediately spotted the reference to the habit of social workers being influenced by disapproval of lifestyle. This concept, action by public servants prompted by disapproval is now common, the police do it all the time. The lack of rigour and honesty is very worrying.


The other point is that fostering of all ethnic minority children has become a hugely profitable cottage industry, not just Roma. My own knowledge, I cannot say I have either done research or have inside information, is that my local authority has a wholly dysfunctional Social Services department.

It is divided up along ethnic lines and resembles a battle ground. As so much money is spent on 'vulnerable children' it goes without saying that the temptation to become corrupt and to 'defend' existing arrangements and budgets becomes too much for the system to cope with.

Also any suggestion to improvements of controls or changes in work practices are too difficult for managers to proceed with for fear of being called 'racist'.

One really does not know where to start with this story.I would love to see what Rotherham Social Services defines as a "British" way of life,and here's me thinking they were trying to exterminate that sort of thing.

I would agree that children walking the streets at 2am or being subject to physical abuse is worrying.But why are these people here in the first place?We must be crazy for allowing this situation to develop.This issue is certainly a far greater worry than the removal of the foster children in the first place.

According to the Immigration minister



Having your children removed by Social Services must class as not being self sufficient.But have I no doubt the courts will never send parents back once their children are taken into care in this country......This is all insane.

Edited by user 07 December 2012 18:36:52(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

It's like a lot of other things such as the Climate Change industry, which starts with objectives and becomes an industry, career path and power base. It's main purpose is perpetuating itself and contradictions follow.
What's the point of wind turbines if they don't reduce CO2 emissions? What's the point of reducing CO2 emissions in the UK by driving industry overseas, with no global reduction in emissions, probably an increase?
It allows the boxes to be ticked and the scams to continue.

Another example is organised religions, which generally have nothing to do with anything the founders were going on about, and treat people trying to revert to that as heretics.

So in this case, the main requirement is not child welfare, it's the child welfare industry, which has precious little to do with child welfare. The nonsenses are a necessary part of growing an industry based on providing something basically no one wants, at least not on the scale the industry has to provide it to sustain itself.

As for the contradictions of multi-culturalism, Multi-culturalism isn't the name of a policy, it's the name given to having mass-immigration and not having a policy to cope with it.

RAENorth said:-

I had always thought that any non-British lifestyle was a plus where it came to the Public Services.



As Dr North says.... we have to rise up and slaughter them.

I just don't know when.

Here is where the problem starts. It would be easy to remove from any 'hearing transcript' all the information that might identify the children or parents. That is not what we are talking about here though is it? What we have here is a 'system' where 'Child Catchers' and their 'allies' can hide behind that same child protection in order to mask their own activities (and profits).

As we have all seen while examining the 'green economy' the same faces and companies crop up again and again. Turn over a rock and not just cockroaches, but the very same cockroaches exposed last time, scuttle out into the daylight. One suspects that, were suitably (child/parent information) redacted records available, we will see the same 'industry'. What is the betting that, were 'suitably redacted' information available on demand, we would find that everyone (same people) involved in the child catching industry has some 'interest' in the same. That is to suggest that if we had the names of the 'social workers', 'expert witnesses' and (even) the 'judges' in these cases - we could examine their 'impartiality' and find them 'wanting'. None of this (those involved) information would breach ant child identity laws. If the 'Judge' holds shares in a 'child snatching' company then we can probably guess what his decision will be.

What fully disclosed information (minus child details) would do of course is not expose 'children to harm' but expose all those in the 'chain' that have substantial 'interests' in the 'child snatching' industry. We shall see... I predict though that in the unlikely event that a full transcript of the child snatchers becomes available we will see everyone from 'the bench' through to the 'expert witnesses' exposed as having a 'share' in the Industry. And I further predict that the same names will appear in every case.

Social workers are more like a cult than a proffession,decisions on adoption and fostering should be made by a lay panel of elected councillors.

When these scandals are finally exposed we will see how grateful we should be to Christopher Booker. He is the only journalist who has written about this problem.
I wonder if this is one of the cases he can’t give details about because of a court order.